SuperSite Blog

I am liking it for sure. I am a big fan of the ribbon.

I don't understand what they've done with the main menu button. Sinofsky specifically stated they placed the office button in the top left corner to take advantage of the screen corner, the most accessible place to put a control, when the window is maximized. Now they've made it smaller and moved it down, away from that advantageous spot, and in its place is that still-useless* standard application icon. Congratulations on going backwards in UI theory, MS.

Otherwise, it all looks really good.

* and wholly redundant; there are no features accessible through it that can't be done elsewhere easiler.

Not to mention placing them inline with the tabs is seemingly unintuitive anyway.

I agree with bkvalheim. Looks good, and I like the ribbon UI a lot. I am excited to try out the web version of Office 14.

Pingback from  Primeros pantallazos del Microsoft Office 14 - FayerWayer

Most of these screenshots are taken with the Windows 7 Basic theme running or on Windows Server 2008 R2, so we don't know how it looks with Aero turned on.

Whats wrong with the current office suites, that we need to replace them?

Or does MS need $ more than I need a new Office Suite?

@Ocean - "Whats wrong with the current office suites, that we need to replace them?"

Nobody said there was anything wrong with the current MS Office suite. If you don't want to replace yours, then don't. The same could have been said for the 80286 processor and Model T. But, then...you are just trolling.

--tayme

@ab:

The second pic is with Windows 7 Aero.  The Word window is maximized though, so it's not certain what the title bar and such will look like with the Aero treatment.

>>The same could have been said for the 80286 processor and Model T.<<

Differences in speed for both, and comfort came in in the case of the new Model T.

So what do I get, basically, by upgrading to the newer office suites?

"So what do I get, basically, by upgrading to the newer office suites?"

What did you get by going from Office XP to Office 2003?

or windows 95 to 98?

"So what do I get, basically, by upgrading to the newer office suites?"

I don't know.  You might want to wait until MS starts commenting on it and what is actually going to be released in it before jumping to any conclusions.  If you are a geek, then this type of stuff interests you.  If you are not, move on.

And the same can be said for upgrades in general.  What someone thought was an upgrade, such as to the Model T or later to the Model A, some still were clinging to the horse and buggy, seeing that there wasn't any real difference, or that the horse and buggy was still better.

"So what do I get, basically, by upgrading to the newer office suites?"

The satisfaction of lining Microsoft's pockets so they can continue to throw money away on "me too" projects such as the Zune.  ;-)

Seriously, most people use a small fraction of the feature set in Office. For them, there's no compelling need to upgrade.

"So what do I get, basically, by upgrading to the newer operating system upgrades?"

"The satisfaction of lining Apple's pockets so they can continue to throw money away on "me too" projects such as the Apple TV, and OS X Server."  ;-)

There.  That's better.

Translation:  "Quit being an a$$, losta."

I paid $29 after an MS rebate for Office 2004 with a free upgrade to Office 2008 Media edition. I get Entourage for Exchange use. Dang, I ain't switching to nothing, even if it's free!

Wae, MS sent the wrong edition, so I called MS customer service and they sent the Media edition, refunded my $10 shipping fee, then told me he was talking to me from Canada! Eh! Also, he told me to keep the Office 2008 Student version too! Holy crap was I happy! Thank you Microsoft.

Wae: You're right. I meant "unprofitable projects".

Thanks for correcting me.

Realistically, since, by all reports, the actual pre-beta is of the server components, there's not even much of a certainty that these screen shots even bear a resemblence to the actual Office 14.

Waethorn,

lotsa's right for once. Calling Apple TV and OS X Server "me too projects" really isn't fair since Apple TV isn't even close to the feature list of a Media Center Extender and OS X Server is pretty much only used inside of Apple since it's so far behind any reasonable server OS.

"You're right. I meant "unprofitable projects"."

So did I.

Yeah. Throwing money at unprofitable projects is a bad idea. Why, back in 1990 people thought Bill Gates was nuts for having spent $100,000,000 over a period over half of the 15 year old company's life on one project that had never turned a profit.

It was called Windows.

What ever happend to that?

"It was called Windows.

What ever happend to that?"

You could say the same about Apple TV, or OS X Server.  The difference is, only one of the three is successful (especially so worldwide), and carries a high level of brand awareness.

BTW mike:

I called Microsoft Redmond.  They said to call this number:

+011-080-40103000  ;)

Free beer if you figure that one out.  

"Calling Apple TV and OS X Server "me too projects" really isn't fair since Apple TV isn't even close to the feature list of a Media Center Extender and OS X Server is pretty much only used inside of Apple since it's so far behind any reasonable server OS."

I like your explanation.  >:)

@losta:

Don't worry.  You could stand to earn some money during this downturn:

www.eweek.com/.../Apple-Could-Face-Lawsuits-Over-Jobs-Health

>:)

@Waethorn - That looks like an international number...probably one of these - www.microsoft.com/.../india.mspx

--tayme

For every "Windows" at Microsoft, there are ten of these:

www.microsoft.com/.../mspbspr.mspx

Love the quote at the end of this interview with Mossberg: "No Blue Screen Of Death on Unix"

www.marketwatch.com/.../19993D87-2A80-4DE5-B876-164F36837B1D

Windows is such a tarnished brand that it's a world wide joke.

Yeah, "waethorn", Apple's stock was down less than two bucks today. Of course Apple "could" face a lawsuit (as the baiting headline suggests). You "can" sue for almost anything. Intelligent investors realize that while Steve Jobs is the public face of Apple, he hardly IS Apple. The creative and intelligent people there will go on fine with or without him. No one (except you and some other hardcore WinJihadists) wishes him ill, but the fact remains that he's important (but not essential) to Apple's continued success.

lotsa, the stupidity of such a headline of such speculation is beyond words. Also, reading several of these headlines speculating 'a potential lawsuit' also state that most lawyers feel that it would not be successful.

Also, wasn't Jobs honest about his cancer and treatment in 2004? Why would he lie now? While I can certainly understand we people would jump to conclusions, his past behavior states otherwise.

Lawyers really ruin the world, only to profit themselves. Go ahead, keep electing them into office. More tears will result.

"+011-080-40103000  ;)"

That's Bangalore. They have call centers there and in Delhi, I think. :)

"For every "Windows" at Microsoft, there are ten of these:

www.microsoft.com/.../mspbspr.mspx"

I don't think the iPhone would have been such a huge success if any other company had released it. In fact, I'm sure a $699 (or $499) phone would've been a massive failure if someone else had released it.The media helps Apple a lot in these matters.

>>Seriously, most people use a small fraction of the feature set in Office. For them, there's no compelling need to upgrade.<<

Most businesses will make an upgrade every few years and that's money that's built in and almost pre-counted by MS.

What I'm asking is, as an ordinary consumer, what will be some of the compelling features of the new suite that would move me to upgrade?

"What I'm asking is, as an ordinary consumer, what will be some of the compelling features of the new suite that would move me to upgrade?"

It's like asking why Audi releases a new A4 every year. Do you think people with 2008 or 2009 A4s will sell their cars to buy the 2010 model when it comes out?

"In fact, I'm sure a $699 (or $499) phone would've been a massive failure if someone else had released it.The media helps Apple a lot in these matters."

Two words: Motorola Razr. That was a $600 phone when it was introduced, and it was an instant hit.

And I don't remember "the media" being particularly enamored with Motorola as a company.

The iPhone is one of the few products in recent memory worthy of the hype it generated.

>>I don't think the iPhone would have been such a huge success if any other company had released it. In fact, I'm sure a $699 (or $499) phone would've been a massive failure if someone else had released it.The media helps Apple a lot in these matters.<<

People kept buying at that price, and even more so after it dropped.  That happened because it was really good device.  Even if the media helped hype the device up, it had to keep running on it's own.

Here's a Wikipedia entry that should give you pause:

>>Due to its striking appearance and thin profile, it was initially marketed as an exclusive fashion phone, but within a year its price was lowered and it became a top seller. Motorola has shipped more than 120 million units. <<

Motorola /= Apple.  Without the media's help how did this happen?

And lets not forget:

>>When PC World  first wrote about the $500 Razr V3, we called it flat-out fabulous.

--

It was so cool, you could almost see people drooling with desire when one came into the office. A great marriage of functionality and design. <<

www.pcworld.com/.../the_50_greatest_gadgets_of_the_past_50_years.html

$500 and onto a EPIC WIN.  That was execution...not the media.  Ditto the iPhone.

"Here's a Wikipedia entry that should give you pause:"

No. It actually proves my point. Thanks for that. No company gets the kinds of hype that Apple does these days. I repeat, the iPhone would have probably been a failure had some other company launched it.  Razr was before the media's fascination with Apple. Now, when Apple enters a market, competitors have to watch wistfully from the sidelines as it hogs all the media limelight. I'm not saying that their products aren't good. What I'm saying is that there's a feeling in the media that no other company that competes with Apple makes good products.

I never liked Razr. Thought it was an awful phone.

Get A Mac - one of the best marketing ideas.

www.entrepreneur.com/.../199056.html

Nothing from Microsoft there? No surprise!

>>there's a feeling in the media that no other company that competes with Apple makes good products. <<

Ultimately, it's the consumer that decides whether they are right or not.

Consumers seem to like the iPhone.  Consumers didn't have the media telling them to go after the Razr, yet it still sold big.

You're overselling the medias impact.  

The worst commercial ever (created by Microsoft, of course) uses Macs.

www.techcrunch.com/.../worst-microsoft-video-promo-ever-take-2-just-cover-up-the-mac-with-stickers

How bad can MS get? Lame, lame, lame.

Robert, please, please, please go away.

@ocean: "Robert, please, please, please go away."

Only if you do too. You're input is a minimalist and banal as the rest of it.

"Ultimately, it's the consumer that decides whether they are right or not."

It is the consumer. And from what I've seen, the only kind of research consumers do is to see which is the hottest product out there. I bet a lot of people don't download apps and other stuff on their iPod Touches and iPhones. I bet a lot of people didn't research the Razr to see if it was actually better for them than competing products and purchased it only because everyone else seemed to have one.

For some products, the buzz builds over time. They go through the normal product lifecycles: the introduction phase with low volumes (where customers have to be prompted to buy the product), a growth phase, maturity, and finally decline.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Product_life_cycle_management

Apple's products come with the buzz pre-generated for them by the media. Many of them have an extremely short product introduction phase or skip that phase altogether. Kinda like that political figure tayme talks about. :)

>>And from what I've seen, the only kind of research consumers do is to see which is the hottest product out there.<<

You're not serious, are you?  Apple products may be hot, and thats good marketing, but they are also well designed and easy to use.  Most of the time.  :)

>>I bet a lot of people didn't research the Razr to see if it was actually better for them than competing products and purchased it only because everyone else seemed to have one.<<

Most peoples research IS word of mouth.  Thats why having a community, 'fanboys', is so important.

MS did it well with the X-box and is trying with the Zune.

>>Apple's products come with the buzz pre-generated for them by the media. <<

The media reports only what will get it eyeballs or sales. If they are talking Apple products, its because it resonates with their users.  They won't spend time on a product that doesn't.  

>>And from what I've seen, the only kind of research consumers do is to see which is the hottest product out there.<<

"You're not serious, are you?  Apple products may be hot, and thats good marketing, but they are also well designed and easy to use.  "

Did I say their products weren't good? You're twisting the context of my words there. Apple's products are good, but are you telling me no other company makes good products?

I don't think Microsoft just built a fan base for the XBox one fine day. It took time and games like Halo played a huge part.

The original iPhone was OK. It was only after the App Store was launched that it became a good phone. What kind of "word of mouth" advertising had people waiting for hours outside of Apple stores on the launch day to buy a $699 phone? Obviously, someone had to be building that buzz.

"The media reports only what will get it eyeballs or sales. If they are talking Apple products, its because it resonates with their users.  They won't spend time on a product that doesn't."

That's like a chicken and egg debate. You say the media hypes Apple's products because it knows they'll be successful. I say they are successful in part because the media hypes them so much.

>>It was only after the App Store was launched that it became a good phone. <<

Huh?  You said above that:

>>I bet a lot of people don't download apps and other stuff on their iPod Touches and iPhones. <<

Round and round we go...

"I bet a lot of people don't download apps and other stuff on their iPod Touches and iPhones."

What? Oh, come on. Now you're just being disingenuous. In December, the App Store saw its 300 Millionth download, and there are more than 10,000 applications available. It's been an overwhelming success.

As Joe Biden famously said, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10114894-37.html

"What I'm saying is that there's a feeling in the media that no other company that competes with Apple makes good products."

Tell that to David Pogue, who practically had an orgasm over the Palm Pre.

...and people say Pogue is a Apple stoolie...

>>Every company and its brother has tried to duplicate the success and the magic of the iPhone. But they have all been working off of checklists. Wi-Fi, 3G, Bluetooth, touch screen - yawn. They never get the importance of elegance, fun, whimsy, simplicity, design.

Palm does. Led by the former Apple engineering executive Jon Rubinstein, Palm has created a spectacular, beautiful, joyous machine.<<

Now about those apps...

www.iht.com/.../ptpogue15.php

>>Oh, and the Pre also does away with the usual iPhone gripes. There's a slide-out thumb keyboard, and it has a wonderful, rubberized clicky feel; you can pop the battery out yourself (the phone is smaller but thicker than the iPhone); and yes, there's copy and paste. Best of all, there's no five-year exclusive AT&T deal this time; the phone makes its debut with Sprint, but that's a limited-time exclusive.

There's a lot more to say about the Palm Pre, boss, but I'm sure you'll agree that I should save it for my full review when the thing finally ships. It's worth mentioning it now, though, so the readers whose two-year contracts are ending soon can plan ahead.<<

If he was in Apples backpocket before, he isn't anymore.  Radical idea:  maybe he always just called it as he saw it.

"What kind of "word of mouth" advertising had people waiting for hours outside of Apple stores on the launch day to buy a $699 phone? Obviously, someone had to be building that buzz."

Trends come and go. Remember the hype for the Windows '95 launch? There was a story at the time about a woman who went into a store to buy it, and the sales rep asked what kind of computer she had. "You need a computer?", she asked.

Now THAT is hype. But I don't remember hearing any Windows fanbois complaining. I imagine the "mikegalos"/"waethorn" crowd would correctly say the same thing "Ocean" did: W95 got buzz because it resonated with users.

Same with the iPhone. "The media" exists exists to sell advertising (pick one: air time, newsprint space, impressions). They won't report that which won't get attention, because without it they don't exist. Period.

Jon Gruber on the Pre:

>>If you haven’t seen it yet, Palm’s introduction of the Pre is definitely worth watching. I’m impressed. <<

No wonder Windows Live Search (or whatever they call it now) is such a dead turkey

www.alleyinsider.com/.../how-microsoft-blew-search-msft

What a horrible OS Windows is.

www.theregister.co.uk/.../royal_navy_email_virus_outage

Royal Navy infected with a virus. Don't forget kids, run anti-virus, anti-spyware and more on your Windows boxes.

Linux and OS X guys, don't worry. You will not be affected.

Windows: a horrible OS.

Of course Linux is the preferred (and superior) option for server side: news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10142727-16.html

No wonder they call you a troll, robertsjoe, you come up with some awful rubbish.

"I bet a lot of people don't download apps and other stuff on their iPod Touches and iPhones."

"What? Oh, come on. Now you're just being disingenuous. In December, the App Store saw its 300 Millionth download, and there are more than 10,000 applications available. It's been an overwhelming success."

How can I be disingenuous when all I'm doing is making a conjecture?

Nevertheless, your facts don't really prove me right or wrong. They don't tell me how many distinct iPhone users (not iPod Touch) owners downloaded those 300 mn applications. It might just be 10 mn for all you know.

Just so you know, my statement wasn't to show Apple in negative light. In my opinion, a lot of people -- like the one in the Win 95 line -- simply "go with the flow". They buy the product because everyone else is and because it's the hottest product on the market at that time and don't end up using it to its full potential.

"Now THAT is hype. But I don't remember hearing any Windows fanbois complaining."

I'm assuming you were in contact with everyone when Win95 was released when you make that statement.

Pingback from  Primeros pantallazos del Microsoft Office 14 : Blogografia

Pingback from  Weekend Roundup XIV